Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 8

Reliable source for capitalisation of 'v'an der Sloot
User:Kww, WP:WINARS and the other one is a news report in Dutch. I think we need an English language style guide source.Overagainst (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A style guide for the handling of Dutch names in English? It's not specifically addressed in any that I'm aware of. Dutch usage is quite regular, and accurately described in Dutch names. Perhaps Drmies knows of one: he's a native Dutch speaker, it's only an acquired tongue for me. Drmies, the question is a about the shifting capitalization of the "v" in Joran van der Sloot: a few editors have attempted to put the "v" to lower case even when the name is used with the forename, as in "After van der Sloot went" instead of "After Van der Sloot went".&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange to relate, I have read in an English style guide that the normal procedure is to not to shift capitalising the v in van, except at the begining of a sentence. The onus is on you to come up with a reliable source for the edit you want to make. Until then could we stop puzzling readers with an oddly shifting useage.Overagainst (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not oddly shifting, and it has been the form of capitalization used in the article and all related ones for years. Let's see if Drmies has anything to say, and then we can take it to an MOS discussion if you think there's an established English style that would contradict the way Dutch people use their own names.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed it and thought it was odd, and I'm no User:Rothorpe. Pending the supply of a well sourced reference for shifting the capitalisation when writing in English, it should not be used. Take it out until then please.Overagainst (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the plug, Overagainst, and I agree about unnecessary importation of foreign-language rules to English. Rothorpe (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's the longstanding form: it survived FAR in this fashion. It's the normal usage, and doesn't really shift: the first character of the name is always capitalized. I cannot find English sources that use "van der Sloot" on its own without capitalization. The New York Times appears to always use "Mr." to avoid the problem, referring to him as "Joran van der Sloot" or "Mr. van der Sloot", never as "van der Sloot" or "Van der Sloot. Can you show English sources that ever use "van der Sloot" on its own, uncapitalized? Pinging Drmies, by the way.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you still have no reliable source for that edit you've reverted to.Overagainst (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to have a look in the MLA style guide, if I run into one; I know I have one at work, but I'm home with foreign visitors (yes, Dutchies, so you know I'm eating good cheese). I've been writing in English for so long that I've forgotten some Dutchisms, but the bigger problem is that occasionally I get confused--so I really have to look that up. What I've done here in articles on Dutch topics isn't really a good guide since I can't vouch for the accuracy of how I usually do it, and I've been speaking so much Dutch the last week or so that my confusion is at an all-time high. I'll get back to this when I can--nu moet ik even mijn dochter ophalen van school. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Undo your revert please Kww.Overagainst (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Epicgenius made a bold change, I reverted. Your intervening change was against the established style of the article, all related articles, and any usage I can find. I repeat my question: can you find any English source that uses a bare "van der Sloot" as opposed to "Van der Sloot"? I can not. Can you find any English precedent for starting a name with a lowercase letter? I can not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And, just to correct one misapprehension: this isn't a WP:RS issue, it's a WP:MOS issue. We haven't got a dispute over facts: we are all in agreement that the names involved are Joran van der Sloot, Paulus van der Sloot, Peter de Vries, and Patrick van der Eem, even though the recent edit tried to make "van der Sloot" inconsistent with the usage for "de Vries". The choice of how we capitalize their names is an WP:MOS issue. Our MOS borrows from others, but it doesn't exactly follow any of them, and doesn't specifically address this issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The style of the article is something that should not exist. User:Epicgenius's edit was bringing the article's style on one name back into line with all the other articles in the english language Wikipedia. Nothing by way of a reliable source for doing what you want to do with the names has been provided and Drmies has more or less said it is a "Dutchism". I see no reason to retain the name style Dutchisms.Overagainst (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I completely understand this comment, but I didn't identify anything specifically as a Dutchism. I said that I get confused between Dutchism and Anglicisms, but I'm about to look it up. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, usually, "van" in a name is lowercase if it is a Netherlands name, but capital if it is Belgian. I don't really speak Dutch, so let's ask Drmies about their view on this. (I think that may be a 'she' but I do not know for sure.)

Also, this is a bit unrelated, but there are streets named Van Dam Street, Van Kleeck Street, Van Loon Street, and Van Horn Street near where I live. However, since the names are standalone, the "Van" is capitalised. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm on it, (male or female, either way!). Drmies (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an unnecessary importation of foreign-language rules when we are writing in English; there would be no end to it as there are differences between Afrikaans, Flemish and Dutch even on this one little issue (capitalisation of 'v'an). Saying something is not specifically forbidden is a very weak rationale.Overagainst (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. I'm looking at the MLA. In a nutshell, if the prefix is ordinarily used with the last name it should be capitalized: Von Braun, Van Dyck. Generally it's not used at all: Beethoven, Vondel. So, if JvdS is called "Van der Sloot", "Van" is capitalized. If his first name is used as well "van" has lowercase. His entry for an autobiography in a Works Cited starts "Sloot, Joran van der". Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I read the MOS correctly (section linked above), and if this and this have editorial credibility, then is correct. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We use the full name once and omit the first name thereafter. The useage Kww wants is a specifically Dutch rule as Drmies's Dutch language cite shows. No reliable source has been provided to support use of the rule in English, or in the article.Overagainst (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're having a hard time reading. I also cited an English-language book which uses that same rule, and a US style guide which supports it--as I thought I had stated above. Also, note where I said the following, "If I read the MOS correctly (section linked above), and if this and this have editorial credibility, then is correct." So you can keep asking and asking about a "reliable source" for this rule--well, the MOS has been offered to you, and an English-language book, and a US style guide. The only thing you have offered is "no". Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Overagainst (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my request to you, Overagainst: can you show me any reliable English sources that use "van der Sloot" uncapitalized when it is not used with the first name? I can't find any examples in reliable English sources that refer to him as simply "van der Sloot" without capitalizing it to be "Van der Sloot"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the only one currently cited in the article, AFAIK. The great majority have it capitalized, so I think we're ready to move on. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about what one persons name is or has been rendered as. Sorry if I am being obtuse, could someone just give the link (again) to a relevant section of a guide to style in writing English which says that the capitalisation of the 'v' in 'van' should alter depending on whether the full name or only the last name is being used (apart from at the beginning of a sentence ect), because I want a reliable authority for it being normal proper usage in English to apply that Dutch language rule.Overagainst (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "In English, writers have shown little consistency in their treatment of such names. The frequent older practice was to retain and capitalize the particle when the surname was used alone". That's from The Chicago Manual of Style, the 1982 edition (I'm not that old--I got a used copy ages ago). This stuff about "this is not about what one persons name is or has been rendered as": yes it is, since there aren't really general rules to stick to, as I mentioned above. Why should Vondel be treated differently from Van Dyck? I don't know, but he is. Without some ironclad rule from the MOS, we should go with a. what acceptable style guides say (and I cited two of the most authoritative ones) and b. what reliable sources say (Kww has pointed out a few intricacies, and so have I). And just to make matters clear, in case you're not familiar with the two guides: the MLA and Chicago manuals are for writers of English, and within their fields they are authoritative. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we may need a fifth opinion on this. Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why shift the capitalisation unless it is necessary? There is a very clear general rule in Dutch and the occasional practice in English and American in regard to Dutch names derives from it. See here please. So the article is following an uncertain rule. My reading is the Dutch practice is different to what is current usual practice according to the authoritative English and American style guides. Your cite: "frequent older practice was to retain and capitalize the particle when the surname was used alone" implies that practice is no longer frequently being followed. I think the best way is to be consistent in capitalisation of names following the modern practice as used by CNN and sticking with the same capitalisation when the second name only is used (though not at the beginning of a sentence obviously), which is what we have to do in the article. It's fine to to do that according to style guides. It is all very well to say we should move on, but currently the article is shifting the capitalisation, and I can assure you readers do notice this and puzzle over it. Ceasing to puzzle readers would be an improvement.Overagainst (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, we have a grand total of one English source that uses a raw lowercase "van der Sloot". Any others? It's actually extremely peculiar to start a proper name with a lowercase letter, so I don't understand why anyone would consider "Van der Sloot" to be some kind of exception. If anything looks strange to an English eye, it's the lowercase "van" in "Joran van der Sloot", and that usage is so widespread among our sources that I don't think anyone could muster a reasonable argument against it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm finding this a bit irritating. Overagainst first says we can't use "one source" about "one person" to make up a guideline, and then they do exactly that--never mind that CNN isn't consistent either. If you look through the sources you see a clear preponderance of the capitalized version. In addition, they again draw an incorrect conclusion from what I provided: "that practice is no longer frequently being followed" is correct, but that does not mean that therefore we should do the opposite of what the older practice was. If this were an RfC, and perhaps it should be, there are arguments on the one side, and inconsistency and sophistry on the other. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency lies in not being consistent. There is no question that the name is "Joran van der Sloot". If you want to avoid 'starting a proper name with a lowercase letter' there are ways around that. We could use the last name by itself only at the beginning of a sentence or section title. The article is currently switching the capitalisation of the v in van to follow a rule that does not exist in current English useage, and vastly puzzling readers (especially those who may have learned English as a second language). Learning a foreign language is a worthwhile accomplishment which no doubt makes for a better editor. However, English is difficult enough without importing rules from another language on the capitalsation of names which result in things which seem to be either typos or enigmatic incongruity. Overagainst (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Vastly puzzling readers" would seem to be a stretch. CNN is extremely inconsistent, as I can find both "van der Sloot" and "Van Der Sloot" there. Can you show any news source or encyclopedia site that is using the system you are advocating?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The current article "is extremely inconsistent, as I can find both "van der Sloot" and "Van Der Sloot there". Such obtrusively shifting capitalisation is mysterious enough to puzzle almost everyone who reads it, and accrue a far from inconsiderable amount of bafflement. I suggest we get around the capitalisation problem when using the last name by itself through only using 'van der Sloot' at the beginning of a sentence or section title, so it will appear as "Van der Sloot".Overagainst (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The one and only usage of "Van Der Sloot" in the article is a quote from CNN, which, as I have noted, is inconsistent in its usage. There doesn't seem to be any merit in in creating a problem by miscapitalizing the name and then fixing that problem by restructuring sentences so that "Van der Sloot" never appears in the middle of a sentence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My compromise is a way for the capitalisation to alter without it being obtrusive, it's still following that particular Dutch rule (for those who care). I don't understand what the problem from the reader's perspective would be. The readers are what matters, right?_Overagainst (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The distorted English induced by always making "Van der Sloot" the subject of every sentence in which he appears would be a far worse problem. As it stands, you still haven't even demonstrated that there is a problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first time we call him 'Joran van der Sloot'. After that it is no problem to start a few sentences with his name because he was the one who told the story. Actually I find starting the sentence that way is the least convoluted of structures, and is the easiest to read. It's the natural way, no one is going to think it's odd to have a few sentences like that. To mix it up there could be "Van der Sloot's account of ...". So there will be enough variety for what we have to say. I don't think he will be mentioned in dozens of sentences in Wehwalt's forthcoming great master edits.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "17-year-old Joran van der Sloot" - the V in van der Sloot is later capitalised...consistency?" as User:Giggy pointed out at the featured article archive 1, Wehwalt said "Dutch naming practices is to capitalize the Van if not accompanied by a first name, otherwise it is lower case. We are consistent on that throughout." User:TwilligToves asked too and was told by auburn pilot "The v should not be capitalized unless simply referring to him by his last name. I don't know much about it, but that's just the capitalization of the name (Joran van der Sloot)". So it's a consistent use of a Dutch rule in an English article (why?) that results in inconsistent capitalisation. Current opinion is 3 against it, not counting those who brought up the issue at the FA.Overagainst (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown that any English sources use the system you have proposed, and, as best as I can tell, the article uses the style used by the preponderance of sources dealing with Joran van der Sloot. I've asked you multiple times to show any source that consistently uses "van der Sloot" in the middle of a sentence, and you have failed to do so. Are you not looking, or are you not finding any but pressing for a change anyway?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Calls for clarification on talk and the FAR to which I responded as best I could, got me got criticised for repeating myself at great length. No more. My argument is above. My proposal: "Van der Sloot" at the beginning of a sentence._Overagainst (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

'Amigoe article' section and refs 190, 191
Article gets pretty far out on a limb in this section IMO. "On July 3, 2007, the Curaçao newspaper Amigoe reported on a documentary video... According to interviews done in preparation for the film, Furthermore, according to Amigoe's report on the interviews," The source for what the section is saying is unclear. It sounds like interviews that did not appear in the film are being drawn on. According to a magazine article, someone said someone else said something about living people. Rather speculative for BLP .Overagainst (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that much of the material here is repeated by the Vanity Fair article, also used as a source. The Amigoe is one of Curacao's largest newspapers, reporting on the contents of filmed interviews. The article isn't going out on a limb: one paragraph is used to summarize the contents of a newspaper report. Note that the article does not rely on the documentary itself: Renee Gielen came to conclusions that no other reliable sources were willing to reach. When people argue that this article is biased against Holloway, this is one of the points to keep in mind: there are people that will argue quite vociferously that by choosing not to include Gielen's accusations and conclusions that the article is biased in Beth Holloway's favor. Such is the nature of neutrality.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Vanity fair is specifically said to not be the source for some of the details even for what it is reffed for. And it is not the ref for most of the section. You seem to be saying that Renee Gielen came to conclusions. If so it should be made clear that Amigoe reported what Gielen said. What the current 'Amigoe article' section asserts is something quite different: "According to interviews done in preparation for the film" then "They also indicate ". That is not proper attribution, viewpoints should be attributed and sourced. More seriously I think it boils down to a newspaper report about Gielen saying he'd talked to someone else who said they knew (allegedly) that living people were up to some things and were investigated (which could only be for something discreditable) and the investigation was obstructed by them. This is the kind of dangerous BLP ground that is best avoided._Overagainst (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You read what I said exactly backwards: the Amigoe viewed the interview tapes and wrote its own report based on the interviews. It did not rely on Gielen's documentary, it used some of the same sources as Gielen's documentary but did not draw the speculative and inflammatory conclusions that Gielen did. It did not report what Gielen said, it reported what Gielen's sources said in the interview tapes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Views are not to be attributed to 'interviews' The opinions should be attributed to whoever expressed those views or synthesised them into a view. It not clear who that is from the ref. More seriously the views are about living people( including some named) who are in effect being accused of something unspecified but serious enough to be the subject of a police investigation. Amigoe is a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a newspaper._Overagainst (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are attributed: to the Amigoe, a reliable source. We can attribute material to them just as readily as we can attribute material to any newspaper. Try going to WP:RSN and ask whether it is forbidden to attribute things to newspapers in BLPs. I eagerly await the results.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" Amigoe reports things. It's not clear whose opinion what is in the section is. 'things' (ie viewpoints) need to be attributed to who expressed them.
 * WP:AVOIDVICTIM"of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."_Overagainst (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Amigoe is a newspaper, and things can be attributed to to newspapers. The section is quite clearly attributed to the Amigoe. The Amigoe is a high-quality secondary source.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We should attribute the views expressed in Amigoe to the writers of the article, be they a single journalist or the editorial staff of the paper.
 * 2) Newspapers like Amigoe do exposé type stories about living people, ie say things about them that they may vigorously dispute. It is not obvious to me it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article to have a section reproducing such contentious material, even if it was of more than passing significance and interest.-Overagainst (talk)
 * 1) Such attribution isn't required.
 * 2) The contents of the interviews and the reported material constitute a major section of what could reasonably be deemed the "Aruban POV". It can't be removed without disturbing the overall balance of the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V"Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." What the section consists of is a view of what happened, while saying the contents of the interviews demonstrated that is what happened. It's not currently obvious that the information is not being stated in Wikipedia's voice. It would need to be far more clearly attributed, and inline.


 * It is contentious material about living persons which appeared in a single newspaper exposé piece years ago. Why should this list of allegations be in its own section?


 * If there is an "Aruban POV" I should think it would object to Aruba being presented as a place where US teenagers get out of their heads on drink and drugs, and the parents of disappeared girls get resented for making a fuss. The current article is not doing Aruba any favours._Overagainst (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you describe it as an "exposé piece"? It is cited using inline citations (note that WP:V doesn't call for online citations, you may be getting confused there). It's roughly corroborated by the Vanity Fair piece, so it doesn't state anything particularly contentious. As for the idea that it is unusual to present the idea that there was resentment against the Twittys in Aruba, you should take note of the demonstrations on July 5, 2005; the Renfro interview in the Los Angeles Times; and the fact that it spent 40% of its annual police budget on this single case while being criticized by all sides for not actually apprehending anyone. Feelings of resentment were evident at the time and probably still linger today. Note the LA Times perspective: "The trajectory of the case mirrors the increasingly bitter relations between Holloway's parents and the people of Aruba, arcing downward from the moment two years ago when islanders joined in the hunt by the thousands to today, when locals mutter over American media distortions and 'missing white-woman syndrome.'"&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A contentious viewpoint needs inline attribution, thereby making it clear who expressed the views. It also needs to be balanced. The section is 100% partisan. From what I can gather, the Dutch language Amigoe article that is reference for the section contains some outright BLP violations.
 * The section explicitly says it does not rely on the Vanity Fair for the details of the alegations about Natalee's parents. The section consists of innuendo and details a series of allegations about Natalee Holloway's parents (their lies, they were under police investigation ect) drawing on a newspaper story from several years ago. It's contentious assertion about living people, yet presented as established fact and virtually in Wikepedia's voice. Overagainst (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Old opinions in encyclopedic article
MWW syndrome was promoted by CNN as a slam against its business competitors who were getting their highest ever ratings with coverage of the Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. While Arubans and many Americans may have been annoyed with the coverage at the time, an encyclopedic article would not concentrate on coverage from a certain period in time. The LA times piece and similar coverage is a curiosity now, time has passed it by. I suspect Aruban resentment evaporated in 2010, and they are now rather sympathetic to Beth Holloway. It's not fair to Aruba to exhaustively reproduce their opinions from 2007. Overagainst (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Evaporated"? Now there's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with a section explicitly about public opinion in Aruba in the period following the disappearance. But the section is not that. What it is doing is drawing on a single source to presenting a contentious view, and exhaustively detail accusations about living people. "According to interviews done in preparation for the film,". That is not proper attribution. _Overagainst (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which claim do you find so problematic? That the Twittys had made arrangements to get their daughter off of Aruba as quickly as possible in the event she was found? That they had early reports that the girl was being held captive in a "drug house"? That they had a dispute over the value of information from an unknown informant? That Dompig complained about interference in the investigation? You seem to be mistaking the restraint used by using one of the most reliable sources available and using cautious attribution for making some kind of attack on the Twittys.
 * The idea of segregating Aruban perspectives about an Aruban investigation into an Aruban crime where the chief suspects were residents of Aruba into a single section is a little odd as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those 'Aruban' perspectives' and other opinion critical of Beth Holloway should be mentioned, but in summary style; just as what the Holloways said ought to be. But one side of the controversy is not given at all. Right from the lede the  article misrepresents what Beth Twitty's criticism of the investigation actually was. The lede says "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her". But that is not true, the Holloways' complaint was that Aruban investigators were not treating Natalee's disappearance as a murder enquiry; and they weren't, as the man in charge publicly admitted in 2008. Making Beth Holloway seem unreasonable, the events of 2010 notwithstanding, seems to be the main objective of the article to me.


 * Despite a lot of time spent on back and forth, there has been no real movement. And going by what was said at BLP noticeboard, it seems my opponents (the trio of long time main editors on the page) think van der Sloot was an innocent man driven to murder Flores by Beth Holloway's campaign about the disappearance of her daughter! I don't see any point in my continuing with this.Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that. What I do think is that there is no evidence one way or the other, so both of our personal opinions on what is most likely is completely irrelevant. If you have a suggested rephrasing for "lack of progress", please give it. That's a topic that can be reasonably be discussed, because you have a valid point: Beth was arguing that the investigation was going nowhere because it wasn't going in what she believed to be the right direction.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If, as I have grown tired of saying, "lack of progress" in finding Natalee is not what Beth Holloway was publicly complaining about, your being open to a rephrasing of what I assert is the article's incorrect charactisation of Beth Holloway's main complaint would not solve the problem with the tenor of the lede at all. I happen to believe that the lede and article misrepresent Beth's accusation that the Aruban police failed to treat Natalee's disappearance as the work of a murderer, and consequently released a murderer, because Beth's intuition was validated by van der Sloot subsequently committing a murder in Peru. Which made the editors who composed the pre 2010 article that concentrated on advancing evidence for an accidental death theory, which they apparently believed in, feel rather foolish.Overagainst (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JvdS's subsequent conviction in Peru has nothing at all to do with what happened prior to that. No court anywhere has ever found sufficient evidence of JvdS having murdered Natalee Holloway to even permit a trial to start. Beth's intuition is not evidence. The article cannot be rewritten to effectively say "Beth was right, everyone else was wrong" simply because you believe that to be the case. As one of those "pre 2010" editors, what I can tell you is that I do not feel foolish for having helped write an article that neutrally presented what occurred as a result of Natalee's disappearance.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is still giving exactly the same weight to the accidental death theory as it did pre 2010. The Aruban police said that's what happened, so the weight given to that side of the controversy between the Aruban investigators and Beth Holloway may have been proper at the time of writing (though it's always been excessively exhaustive IMO). However, a NPOV involves presenting both sides of a controversy, rather than just the one the editors favour, and the Holloways' complaint (that the police were not treating Natalee's disappearance as a murder) has not been given at all. So in that respect the article has been flawed from the beginning.


 * "JvdS's subsequent conviction in Peru has nothing at all to do with what happened prior to that." It most certainly does, and that is why on BLP grounds a certain possibility isn't explicitly stated in wikipedia's voice. The alternative possibility that Natalee Holloway's alcohol consumption caused her death does not have BLP considerations, but that does not mean you are free to have the article give that possibility more weight than it merits while eliminating Beth Holloway's criticism of the police for investigating the case as if it was alcoholic poisoning. If all that front and centre evidence that supports the Aruban police alcohol theory is still to be mentioned then in fairness Beth Holloway's complaint that the Aruban police failed to treat the Natalee's disappearance as a murder (which has always been relevant to an encyclopedic article on the subject) should now be given. But as I can see that is not going to happen,  I'll leave.Overagainst (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tag on Amigoe article section

 * "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."

There was a dispute between me and Kww. George Ho asked for an opinion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard read discussion here. The independent opinion from User:FreeRangeFrog said "I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage.". George Ho put a tag saying there needed to be secondary sources weeks ago. No secondary sources have been provided, yet the tag is being removed.Overagainst (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by my opinion - it seems strange there's an entire section about a work on the subject, sourced almost entirely to itself, which seems to introduce ideas or claims without secondary verification whatsoever. The section is about the article, not about the subject. As such I'd expect significant tertiary sources there, at the least. It's like dedicating an entire section of the Michael Jackson article to a book about his abduction by aliens (which I just made up but one never knows). It's giving importance and weight to the potentially unimportant and undue. In my opinion it belongs in Conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Natalie Holloway, were such a thing to exist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that none of that is true: the documentary it describes was broadcast on two separate television networks in two separate countries, the people interviewed repeated similar comments in multiple venues, those separate venues are mentioned in the section, and the people interviewed are mentioned multiple places throughout the article. I'll rephrase the thing to use less circumspect phrasing and see if you people will stop seeing something that isn't actually there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up to use more direct phrasing and to emphasise that the material is a corroboration of statements made in other sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The section is about the Amigoe article. No tertiary source has been provided. That is not good enough for contentious material about living people. "They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were freed from a drug house in Oranjestad. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities.[190" So the only pupose of having a medjet was in the case "she were freed from a drug house in Oranjestad". This is unreasonable. The section is simply being used for wild speculation. Overagainst (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The material that is left is a summary of statements by two people that are widely quoted in multiple media about the case, and specifically points at information that is reported in multiple sources. Do you want multiple sources saying that the documentary the interviews were for is notable? That's easily provided if that's your objection. Which additional source would you like me to include?
 * http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/film-about-natalee-holloway-case-searches-truth
 * http://www.elsevier.nl/Stijl/nieuws/2007/11/Moeder-wilde-Natalees-gedrag-verdoezelen-ELSEVIER147146W/
 * http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/holloway-suspect-involved-thai-sex-trade
 * http://www.deondernemer.nl/binnenland/168930/De-duistere-kant-van-Jorans-maat.html
 * A bit of searching through Dutch newspaper archives would yield more hits.
 * As a sign that you are actually reading and researching, can you tell me what bit is left in the discussion that is not also reported in Vanity Fair? You seem to be upset that the information that people had at the time was that Natalee was being held captive in a crack house. Note the Vanity Fair description: "''Eight men were in the group, and Munzenhofer's husband took them to scout the downtown house where Natalee was supposed to be. It turned out to be what Arubans call a choller house—a crack house".&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've yet to produce anything in the way of a tertiary source to show the Amigoe article is in any way notable enough for a section. Nor have you anything to back up the assertion that "the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were freed from a drug house in Oranjestad. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities.[190" That is not in the Vanity Fair piece, it is mere assertion to say that the purpose of the medjet was drugs related. Speculation about living people in a section about the Amigoe article needs more than the Amigoe article as a source.


 * I'd rather you did not trawl newspaper articles for drugs and prostitution related slurs to link to, because Associated Press 6/21/2012 Natalee Holloway's mother sues National Enquirer.Overagainst (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles don't need other newspaper articles written about them to be used as sources. This is a case where a national newspaper reported statements made by people that have been widely interviewed in multiple sources about the topic of the article. Can you show me a single instance where we require articles about articles to be written before the article can be used as a source? I don't think you can: that has never been our standard for sources. Also, please don't compare Radio Netherlands Worldwide to the National Enquirer: RNW is an official publication of the Dutch government. I'll happily retitle the subsection to "Interviews with figures that have been interviewed in sources all over the world in connection with this case" if your objection is to the subsection title directly referring to the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no tertiary source (mentions in a scholarly journal or book) for the notability or reliability of the Amigoe article; as it fails the notability test there should not be a section on content specific to it.


 * 2) The allegations made by the Amigoe section about the purpose of the medjet may have been made by someone connected with the case, but that does not in and of itself mean a Wikipedia article should report the allegations. Someone may have claimed to know that the Twittys'  purpose in having a medjet standing by (if they did) was related to recreational drugs abuse, but on the face of it that was hardly a reasonable claim for them to make (to know others' secret motive) and to include accusations about living people, a Wikipedia article needs more than the accusations having once appeared in a newspaper. Overagainst (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement that tertiary sources are required is unsupported by guideline, policy, or practice.
 * Why is mentioning the jet a problem when the attempted rescue from a crackhouse is well-supported? Note that sources surrounding the rescue attempt do not make the claim that Natalee entered it under her own free will, and the context is that she was being held there against her will.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If the Amogoe article merits inclusion because it contains good information then there should be some book or scholarly journal on the case that says so. That a media story has been mentioned by other media outlets (as the Amigoe one may have been) is not confimation of the notability of the original story, still less it's reliabilty or neutrality. A news outlet might report on other outlets' wild and unsubstantiated stories. The section has information about living people sourced to a single article called 'The other side of the Holloway-case', unless there are some some tertiary sources for the Amigoe article containing notable verifiable information, we can't continue to have a section of contentious information about living people sourced to a single avowedly one sided article. An assertion that the Twitty's had a medjet for a secret purpose, which was actually to treat Natallee for drug use, might easily be challenged. And as medical treatment on their return would be a priority for a missing person once they had been found in any any number of possible scenarios, it's not reasonable to claim that the real motivation for having a medjet (if it existed) was just for the case of the missng person being found in a crack cocaine den. The mention of a supposed medjet is problematic because it's being used as a hook (though unreasonable claims to inside knowledge) to hang drugs slurs.Overagainst (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles are included throughout Wikipedia without waiting for scholarly journals to take note of them. The medjet is not being used as a hook to hang drug slurs because the article does not contain drug slurs. There was an effort to rescue Natalee from a drug house where it was believed that she was being held captive. The medjet was involved in that rescue.
 * You keep bringing up single article while blithely ignoring the corroboration of all the contentious material in other sources that I bring up, and that it is reporting the contents of interviews with people that were widely interviewed. Renfro and Dompig are important figures in this story. Would you like me to expand the section, including all the sources that refer the crack house rescue? That doesn't seem like a good solution. It's a part of the story, but a small part of the story, best kept at the weight it currently has.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Amigoe article section has the unreasonable claim (sourced to the article) that the Twitty's had a medjet for the case of Natalee being found in a crack cocaine den: "The Amigoe provided an independent evaluation of the interviews done in preparation for the film. During the interviews, Renfro and Dompig repeated complaints that Aruban authorities had been systematically obstructed in their investigation by the FBI and other American authorities. They also indicate that within a day of Holloway being declared missing, a medjet, unauthorized by Aruban authorities, had arrived on Aruba and had remained for several days. They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were freed from a drug house in Oranjestad. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities.".Overagainst (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to claim that the Twittys had mechanisms in place to rescue their daughter: certainly not contentious, nor is it casting aspersions on the Twittys. I would commend them for having such plans. That they believed their daughter to be in a crack cocaine den/choller house is in the Vanity Fair article, the De Vries documentary, the Gielen documentary, and even in Dave Holloway's Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to expand the section, including all the sources that refer the crack house rescue?". That was a false report that led nowhere. It's unreasonable to reproduce a claim that the medjet was there just for that. Just like the Joran van der Sloot story about him selling Natalee into working as a prostitute which is currently in the lede, and you've again alluded to by linking the story of Sloot recruiting prostitutes . It is difficult to see any purpose in such materiel other than an attempt to humiliate, degrade and victimise.Overagainst (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a part of the history of the investigation. It's a part of the story. As to where it led, it led to coverage in a multiplicity of sources. Your confusion of "slavery" with "prostitution" and "being held captive in a drug house" with "recreational drug user" is the root of your problems with the coverage of the material. There's no intent to humiliate, victimise or degrade any of the people in this article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The parts of the history of the investigation that have been emphasised in the Amigoe section and current page you defend with reverts, are far from notable. Van der Sloot initially "denied any knowledge of Natalee, insisting he didn't even know the name." (according to VF). Yet the lede and article do not mention that fact, but van der Sloot's instantly recanted story of trafficking Natalee into 'sexual slavery' (as it is is phrased) appears front and centre in the lede and  main body of article linked to a page with discussion of prostitutes in Holland, despite my objections. Now we are arguing about a section that contains the preposterous assertion that a medjet was there solely to deal with the aftermath of Natalee bring brought out of a crack cocaine den, and not the myriad other possibilities there would have been for her being found alive, and in which her parents would would want a medjet handy. How could Dompig, Refro or anyone else in interviews seen by the Amigoe staff know for a fact that the crack den scenario possibility was the only reason for a medjett? It's wild speculation of a prurient nature about living people based on one article. There is a pattern in this article of undue weight, with no-story dead ends pertaining to substance abuse and  sexual matters being given predominance. Anyway the drugs being the reason for the medjet is in unbearable tension with the reader's common sense, and just shows that the Amigoe's one sided section and far fetched theories belong in an article called Conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Natalie Holloway as Free Range Frog said.Overagainst (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the specific correlation between the jet and the "drug house".&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities" implies something discreditable about the circumstances. More importantly the article is saying living people were going to spirit the missing person off the island surreptitiously, there are BLP implications as that might be challenged, so there have to be reliable sources for this assertion about them.  How could Dompig, Refro or anyone else in interviews seen by the Amigoe staff know for a fact that the Twittys were going to do this. Maybe someone is on record as having claimed to possess inside knowledge of the Twittys'  intention to do that, but it's difficult to see how they could have come by this inside knowledge, unless the Twitty's told them of their secret plan. So that's hearsay at best. More importantly, and while documentaries and newspapers can report all kinds of stuff, there is a problem with the article repeating claims that someone still living was intending to do something discreditable, especially if they did not in fact carry out their alleged intention. Let's just stick to mainstream reporting of what it is beyond dispute the Twittys actually did do and say.Overagainst (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Amigoe is the largest newspaper in the country, in publication for 130 years, with branch offices in four other countries. How much more mainstream can one get?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was never that Amigoe is not a legit newspaper, which had the contacts to give readers a certain local angle of the story: "the other side"; it was that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we have a different focus. The article in Vanity Fair gives a more balanced account, but there should not be a section on that article either, it's just a source. The Vanity Fair article mentions the crack house episode as one of two instances where the Twittys and their group followed up on tips about Natalee's whereabouts. One tip was she was in was a crack house, the other time was when they learned cops thought Natalee was in a car driving through Aruba. The information proved to be wrong in both cases. If you really are so set on inclusion of the crack house episode in the article, reference it to the Vanity Fair article and include the other instance (ie when they thought that Natalee might be in a car being driven through Aruba). It is cherry picking to include just the crack house story. If the Amigoe article does not mention the car episode, that is just another indication of how one sided the Amigoe article is, and how a section dedicated to it is non-encyclopedic. Overagainst (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The independent opinion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard read  here was the Amigoe article is not a good enough reference for possibly contentious materiel concerning living people. It should be obvious that for an assertion of living people having intendeded to do do something that might be be seen as discreditable,  such as where the section cites the Amigoe's opinion that (interviews)  "indicate that within a day of Holloway being declared missing, a medjet, unauthorized by Aruban authorities, had arrived on Aruba and had remained for several days. They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were found. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities.[190",  the Amigoe article alone is not sufficient. The tag of the Amigoe section is quite in order given what the independent opinion was at the BLP noticeboard. The tag was off during the above discussion, while a single editor argued  against it. I think now it belongs back on the article until that stuff about living people is bettter sourced. Overagainst (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to lede
The article says: "According to Julia Renfro, U.S.-born editor of the Aruban tourist-oriented newspaper, Aruba Today, who befriended Twitty in the early days of the investigation ... within a couple of days, after fixing responsibility on Joran van der Sloot, (Beth) Twittywas telling TV interviewers that she knew her daughter had been gang-raped and murdered".[163]". So the current lede text reading "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." is not quite accurate. I propose it should be replaced with "Aruban police were criticized by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigor in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her".Overagainst (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)